Wikipedia talk:Featured pictures
|Please note that a great deal of discussion regarding Featured Pictures, including all discussions about individual featured pictures, takes place at the FP candidate page.|
- 1 What to do if a FP has to be removed from the MP?
- 2 Request to delist featured image should not fail because voting closed with only two votes
- 3 Delist process change proposal
- 4 Conflicting instructions
- 5 Please help us develop consensus on an Infobox photo
- 6 Picture of the Day discussion
- 7 Featured pictures on Facebook
- 8 The Day We Fight Back
- 9 Editing picture of the day
What to do if a FP has to be removed from the MP?
There's talk on Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors that today's FP should possibly be removed and sent back for further evaluation. Today's problem is for technical issues with the image, making the situation IMHO not of critical urgency. But it does raise a good point. Those of us at MP:ERRORs tend to be the last line of defense for problems with things on the MP. For DYK, ITN, and OTD, which have multiple items in their panel, if there is a big enough problem with an item, the item can just be removed from the panel without major disruption. But for FP (and FA) where a single item is the entire panel, the question is, what should we MP:ERRORS patrollers do if there is a serious problem with the current FP? I'm thinking that a late-discovered hoaxing or copyright issue would be enough to require a rapid pulldown. But what should we put up instead? If nothing else, I suspect I could grab a random FP from years back and re-run it. But I wanted to at least have a discussion on the issue. And there is still the technical issues with today's FP that, while not the urgency of a copyvio, may need for the current image to come down. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
The specifics of the issues with today's pic are already under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#Today's POTD. So let's go ahead and not worry here about that issue, and just discuss the general idea of what to do if an image must come down ASAP. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I've been informed that the FA process now maintains a short emergency list of possible FA sets. This list was set up after a different type of incident late last year, but works perfectly well as a source of FAs ready to drop onto the MP if the existing one must be pulled for some reason. Does FP have a similar sort of list? If not, then I would highly suggest the creation of such. That would give non-FP admins a resource if we need to pull an FP down. For instance, I very well might have pulled down today's FP myself for the technical glitches on it, if I had actually had something else to put up instead. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Request to delist featured image should not fail because voting closed with only two votes
A nomination to delist  should not fail (2-0-?) simply because not enough people bothered to vote.
Voting should remain open until enough interested people cast a vote. In this example, the image is based on original research, but apparently is not controversial enough to bother anyone. But there is no mechanism to obtain 5 votes within 14 days. Yet were it to be nominated to be featured now, no one would support it. Furthermore, the current image in commons is not even the version that received the featured status.
This looks like a problem with the process. An image that garners featured status should not be able to withstand the first challenge so easily. Rather than simply ignoring a delist vote, editors should actually have to record their votes to oppose it. I propose that voting should remain open until at least 5 days after the minimum votes are recorded, 1 day after the last vote is recorded, or 14 days, whichever is latest. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Delist process change proposal
If a featured picture is nominated for delisting and has been modified subsequent to when it was assigned FP status (e.g., any modification to address a reason for the delist nomination), then the picture should lose its FP status by default unless a consensus is achieved that current criteria to be a featured picture are met by either the original picture (in which case the picture is reverted) or the modified image (in which case the new picture receives FP status anew). But if consensus is not reached that the picture is worthy of FP status, then the fact of the consensus that the original picture requires modification shall be sufficient to strip it of its FP status (until such time as a consensus can be achieved that it deserves FP status). 188.8.131.52 (talk) 08:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
According to the box at the top of Wikipedia talk:Featured pictures, "all discussions about individual featured pictures" should go to Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates. According to the box at the top of Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates, "if the subject of the posting you are about to make is not about a FP candidate" then it should go to Wikipedia talk:Featured pictures.
This is a direct contradiction: it means that there is no place to post discussion of featured pictures after they are accepted and are no longer candidates. Specifically, I have comments to make about the descriptive text associated with some featured pictures scheduled to appear later this month, which is why I was looking for where to post them. Would someone with more familiarity about the FP selection process than me please reword one of the boxes to address the conflict?
This note is being posted to both of the indicated talk pages, and I'll use Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates to post my specific comments this time. --184.108.40.206 (talk) 06:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Fixed, but I think you're searching for WT:POTD. The Featured pictures process has no control over what appears on the Main Page. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think that's a fix. It still doesn't address where to post things about FPs after they are no longer candidates. (However, thanks for the pointer to the third talk page.) --220.127.116.11 (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Please help us develop consensus on an Infobox photo
Could available editors please give their opinion on which of [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rick_Remender#Infobox_Photo_Discussion these photos] would make a better Infobox pic for the Rick Remender article? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 13:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Picture of the Day discussion
- I have begun a discussion which may interest readers of this page here. Thank you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Featured pictures on Facebook
This cover to the Wikipedia Facebook page gave me a wonderful idea. I know there's always been issues over Today's Featured Picture and how it works. In short, perhaps a supplement, or even a substitute, could be to have the Featured Picture serve as the cover of the page for a time - for example a week. The current image of "The Tulip Folly" by Jean-Léon Gérôme is so beautiful, it just made it seem like the perfect platform to showcase Wikipedia's great images.
The Day We Fight Back
Please lend your ideas, expertise, and general awesomeness to this project (especially your section), which is designed to bring together all the main page task forces to create a themed main page as part of the User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 155#The Day We Fight Back campaign (sites like Reddit are participating too). See The Day We Fight Back for more information. :)--Coin945 (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Editing picture of the day
- I have attempted to edit the selected picture of the day for :March 3 - Mon. I have tried to save my changes, which can be found by following the direction below the image, but cannot make the changes into the protected box. Would someone fix this, as the present blurb is badly written. 
- Likewise, I have corrected ..... which implied that the poem is well received i.e. that it is still popular. No, it isn't. It is of interest to scholars. It was a scholar who "stated" that Mariana had been a heroine, way back in 1830. The statement was not made in 1830, as implied. It was made retrospectively in about 2006. I have written alternate text and it needs fixing, before it goes front page. 
- Also, the illustrations to Mariana are not the poem. Your blurb deals solely with the poem and its subject matter, as if the artwork had no validity except in some imagined context that you refer to as "encyclopedic value" i.e. as if images have no value except to refer to something else and as if the artist William Edward Frank Britten had no fame in his own right.